Re: 7.0.2 issues / Geocrawler

From: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: Tim Perdue <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.0.2 issues / Geocrawler
Date: 2000-07-12 11:34:13
Message-ID: 396C57B5.A59B0F63@mascari.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tim Perdue wrote:
>
> This is a *big* help.
>
> Yes, the table is approx 10-12GB in size and running your length() and
> update queries is going to take a lifetime, since it will require a
> calculation on 4 million rows.
>
> This doesn't address the serious performance problem I'm finding in
> 7.0.2 for a multi-key select/order by/limit/offset query, which I sent
> in a separate email.
>
> Tim

If I recall correctly, Marc experienced similar performance
differences with UDM search after upgrading. The optimizer was
redesigned to be smarter about using indexes with both order by
and limit. Tom Lane, of course, knows all there is to know on
this. All I can ask is standard issue precursor to optimizer
questions:

Have you VACUUM ANALYZE'd the table(s) in question?

If so, hopefully Tom Lane can comment.

Sorry I couldn't be more help,

Mike Mascari

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Mount 2000-07-12 11:36:02 RE: Contacting me
Previous Message Tim Perdue 2000-07-12 11:27:51 Re: 7.0.2 issues / Geocrawler